China and India’s 2,000-year manufacturing reign

[IndoCarib]

June 11, 2012 1:09 pm by Andrew Hill

I’m fascinated by the first part in a new FT series on manufacturing, led by our expert Peter Marsh, who has a new book coming out on the topic.

In particular, I love the bar chart in this interactive graphic about the “seven ages of industry“ (click on the “chart” tab when it opens).

As you’ll see, between 1830 and 1870, as output surged, there was a dramatic reordering of the global manufacturing hierarchy, which had been dominated by China and India for the preceding 18 centuries.

My first thought was that if those countries could lose their manufacturing edge so dramatically and so quickly during the 19th century “Age of Science”, there must be a risk that today’s dominant manufacturers, notably the US, will fall away during what Peter dubs the “New Industrial Revolution”. He writes, however, that the balance of power in goods production is altering to the extent that the US and other “high-cost” nations may, if they’re clever, be able to retain their edge:

"This new period has the potential to turn winners into losers and also-rans into champions. It provides high-cost nations with a way back into areas of manufacturing some of them thought they had lost to emerging economies such as China and India".

That said, as the chart shows, China and India are already rebuilding their share of manufacturing output at speed. Who is to say that the 150-200 year period in which the UK, Germany and the US took a global lead in producing things won’t turn out to have been a blip in Asia’s 2,000-year manufacturing hegemony?

China and India’s 2,000-year manufacturing reign | Business blog

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The big problem of course, is that there wasn't a nation called "India" one thousand years ago, and no concept of "Indian nationalism" based on such a state.

They are basically comparing the geographic area of what comprises modern-day India. Which would be similar to comparing the geographic region of Europe as a whole.

 

[punjabimunda]

The big problem of course, is that there wasn't a nation called "India" one thousand years ago, and no concept of "Indian nationalism" based on such a state.

They are basically comparing the geographic area of what comprises modern-day India. Which would be similar to comparing the geographic region of Europe as a whole.

go read some indian history and make sure u find out where did the word hindustan came from and from what time.

 

[INDIC]

The big problem of course, is that there wasn't a nation called "India" one thousand years ago, and no concept of "Indian nationalism" based on such a state.

They are basically comparing the geographic area of what comprises modern-day India. Which would be similar to comparing the geographic region of Europe as a whole.

Did China exist at that time.

 

[punjabimunda]

Did China exist at that time.

no it was mongolia..

 

[AADHAAR]

go read some indian history and make sure u find out where did the word hindustan came from and from what time.

He has proven, he has no desire, interest or inclination about things like truth.

He enjoys his own fantasy land. Let us let him be there.

Amen ..

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

go read some indian history and make sure u find out where did the word hindustan came from and from what time.

This is a historical fact:

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator."

- Winston Churchill

Indians themselves admit this on this own sites when there are no foreigners around.

The subcontinent was only very rarely ruled by a Central Authority, most of their history they existed as separate kingdoms with no Central Authority.

Kingdoms like those of Ashoka were anomalies, they did not succeed any state, and no state succeeded them. No state succeeded his and claimed to be the same nation, in fact no state succeeded his at all.

 

[AADHAAR]

This is a historical fact:

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator."

- Winston Churchill

Indians themselves admit this on this own sites when there are no foreigners around.

The subcontinent was only very rarely ruled by a Central Authority, most of their history they existed as separate kingdoms with no Central Authority.

Kingdoms like those of Ashoka were anomalies, they did not succeed any state, and no state succeeded them. And none of them claimed to be the same nation.

Ahh.. CD boy... caught you..

Now, first thing.. copy in the link to Winston Chuchcill thingy....... poor Churcill .. haha...

 

[Adnan Faruqi]

The big problem of course, is that there wasn't a nation called "India" one thousand years ago, and no concept of "Indian nationalism" based on such a state.

They are basically comparing the geographic area of what comprises modern-day India. Which would be similar to comparing the geographic region of Europe as a whole.

The fact is China never existed few centuries ago. It was a land mass of great poverty invaded by Mongols, to Manchus for thousands of years. But the name china was not there.

The big problem of course, is that there wasn't a nation called "India" one thousand years ago, and no concept of "Indian nationalism" based on such a state.

They are basically comparing the geographic area of what comprises modern-day India. Which would be similar to comparing the geographic region of Europe as a whole.

Megasthenes (Μεγασθένης, ca. 350 – 290 BCE) was a Greek ethnographer in the Hellenistic period, author of the work Indica (about India).

If India never existed then how the hell Megasthenes have visited India in 290 BC and written book on the land called India (that never existed as per high IQ)

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The fact is China never existed few centuries ago. It was a land mass of great poverty invaded by Mongols, to Manchus for thousands of years. But the name china was not there.

Wrong. China has been ruled as a single state by a Central Authority for thousands of years.

The legitimacy to be the Central Authority of China, was defined by the Mandate of Heaven, which existed since 1000 BC. Which gave rulers the legitimacy to rule China from the center.

A similar concept in Europe is the Divine right of Kings.

But India was never ruled by any Central Authority, with the exception of one or two short-lived anomalies such as Ashoka's Empire, which did not succeed any state, nor did any state succeed his one.

India spent the vast majority of it's history without any Central Rule, it existed as many separate kingdoms. There was no path of succession between states.

 

[AADHAAR]

The fact is China never existed few centuries ago. It was a land mass of great poverty invaded by Mongols, to Manchus for thousands of years. But the name china was not there.

Exactly ... The river Indus was known even to Alexander and the Greeks ... then, there was never an East China Company formed; the Great Age of Exporation meant .. search for Indians.. not chinese !!!

Really.. nobody knew "china" .. or cared about the inhabitants of that place. In fact, Mongols are written all over roman, indian and arabic history.

Now, CD ... didn't Winston Churchill also say, "China is merely an imaginary expression. No such thing known as China, ever existed in history."

No.. ?.. Try hard... google google..

 

[IndoCarib]

The big problem of course, is that there wasn't a nation called "India" one thousand years ago, and no concept of "Indian nationalism" based on such a state.

They are basically comparing the geographic area of what comprises modern-day India. Which would be similar to comparing the geographic region of Europe as a whole.

It is like saying Chinese-dragon didn't exist before July 2010 (PDF join date). But you did exist since the day you were born ! Right ?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Exactly ... The river Indus was known even to Alexander and the Greeks ... then, there was never an East China Company formed; the Great Age of Exporation meant .. search for Indians.. not chinese !!!

Really.. nobody knew "china" .. or cared about the inhabitants of that place. In fact, Mongols are written all over roman, indian and arabic history.

The mighty Indus Valley Civilization existed in what is now modern-day Pakistan.

India keeps trying to claim these things from her neighbours, such as Buddhism (when in fact Buddha was born in what is now modern-day Nepal).... and the Indus Valley Civilization, which was situated in what is now modern-day Pakistan.

What gives India the right to claim the history of a great civilization that existed almost entirely within modern Pakistan's borders? Just because your culture was born from there?

 

[AADHAAR]

@Adnan Faruqi.. thanks for reminding me about Megasthenes' Indica.

I distinctly remeber a question in "NTSE scholarship guide".. about a multiple choice question about this book (Megasthenes Indica).

He he.. me getting nostalgic.

 

[INDIC]

China never existed as a nation in its entire history, it was foreigners like Mongols who united China as a nation.

This is how China looked in the past

and this is what China look today.

I can't see China ever existed in the Past. China was not even united between 1911-1949 because warlords had their de-facto territories in different parts of China.